: Will the Indians succeed with Jaguar?



orconn
01-03-11, 01:29 PM
So far things have been pretty quiet on the Jaguar front. The new Indian owners of the mark have really only been extending the lines that they took over from Ford. If Jaguar is to have a life in the future it has to come up with something unique unto itself. Ford actually didn't do a bad job of updating some of the classic jaguar designs, but recently they succumbed ti "asianitus" in the designs of their last generation of Jaguar cars ..... and to be honest a refrosting of a Lexus or a even a Hyundai just doesn't justify the purchase of a Jag!

I am hoping that the injection of some sub-continent spice in a once exciting car company will revitalize the mark, but hey are going to have to come up with something like Citroen's "Metropole" to get well healed buyers back into their showrooms. When you can't tell it's a Jaguar agency by what's sitting out front, you are pretty hard pressed not to buy the cheaper whatever down the street.

Aron9000
01-03-11, 04:35 PM
I don't know man, Jaguar has been building some of its best cars in the past 2 years or so. I really like the XF and would probably buy an XK coupe if I had the $$$.

I don't really care for the new XJ though. Its a very bold design, but the rear end is kind of out of whack for me, along with the digital gauges. I know its a love/hate type of car, but it does get noticed and is a bold new design step for Jaguar.

orconn
01-03-11, 04:50 PM
The new XJ looks like a pug nose Lexus and the dash is very "mid-west" high school! Thank goodness they didn't screw up the XK much, although the earlier ones are better looking.

Jesda
01-03-11, 05:48 PM
The XJ is an amorphous blob. It reminds me of the Bentley Flying Spur.

mhamilton
01-03-11, 07:41 PM
I was reading through the '11 XJ brochure myself... the outside is just too different for my taste. For the last 50-odd years XJs have looked roughly the same, and it was a classic look that worked well. This new design... eh... it's going to be outdated too soon.

The interior is pretty gorgeous, but personally I'm not a fan of the "HDTV for a gauge cluster." And in browsing the Jag forums, the new models have more than their fair share of new-model teething problems. Hmmm ... buying a 1st year Jaguar... there's a interesting life decision ;) I'm sure it's fine if you have the money, but I'd hate having to drag it down to the dealer every 2 weeks.

One thing I really don't like, apparently you check your oil level through the onboard computer. WFT?! I'm sorry, is there something inherently wrong with a dipstick? It's bad enough auto makers have axed the transmission dipstick, but at least with ATF you don't really have the possibility of consuming the oil as you do with engine oil. Not to mention, if I'm changing oil, I don't want to put my greasy fingers anywhere near the interior of my new car (I'm sure most new Jag owners have someone else to change oil, but I don't want their dirty fingers in my car either!). I know it's a minor thing, but electronics is my business--I know they never work! :-P

hueterm
01-03-11, 07:57 PM
Agreed...losing the traditional XJ shape was a mistake. I like the new style, but they had that old design down pat....it just needed to be bigger.

I think there would have been room for both...the new design could have gone further up market -- if the thing was worth it...

orconn
01-03-11, 08:09 PM
The last of the traditionally styled XJs was a lot bigger than its' forerunners. I personally thought the last traditional XJ was the best one of all, even better than the series I short wheelbase.

Without the distinctness of the Jaguar designs there really is no reason for the company to exist. Everyone has wood and leather today and there are several cars that handle as well as a contemporary Jag. So without especially fine styling or at least styling that harks back to Jags glory days, the car maker is just another also ran in the exec/luxo segment. Maybe Jag's new Indian owners will see reality and bring back some of the Jag style in a reliable and competitive style.

If GM doesn't do the same thing for Cadillac I am afraid I won't be buying another one!

delaford321
01-03-11, 09:42 PM
Yahoo News just had a post about how the new Jaguar is one of 10 items that don't work (along with the slap chop)!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-03-11, 10:08 PM
I really like the new XJ, but I believe it was styled before the Indians took ownership.

orconn
01-03-11, 11:33 PM
You are right, Chad, the new XJ was styled before the Indians took over the company.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-04-11, 12:02 AM
I'm all about a car manufacturer having a long lineage of cars that have a trademark style, from generation to generation as the years pass, but the Jaguar XJ, aside from the 1996 (?) to 2001 body style, wasn't ever a fantastic looking car in my opinion. The '70s and '80s models looked goofy with their big round headlights, long hood, short sloping rear decklid, boxy tail lights and uber thin roof pillars, then they got a bit better with the circa 1990 restyle, where they went to the boxy headlights, and the 1995 or 1996 redesign was simply gorgeous. A big luxury saloon that looked sexy, feminine and very lithe, quite the contrast from the S Class, 7 Series and A8 of it's time, but then when it was redesigned in 2002 or 2003, it got heavier and fatter looking and started to remind me of those weird '80s models again. This 2010/11 model is a breath of fresh air and I really really like it.

Jesda
01-04-11, 12:20 AM
The key to Jaguar's evolution over the past few decades was changing something significant while retaining one or two elements of the previous design. The eye is supposed to see a new car while declaring "That's a Jag!" Its true that the aluminum XJ in 2004 wasn't different enough, which probably was a major reason why sales were flat, but the new blob threw the baby out with the bathwater. Its not a Jag, its not anything. Its a very nice car, but its lacking entirely in any kind of identity.

I'd argue that Mercedes Benz does a pretty effective job of moving forward while maintaining linearity.

Playdrv4me
01-04-11, 01:04 AM
The new XJ is the only one worse than that square headlight oddity from the late 1980s.

thebigjimsho
01-04-11, 01:23 AM
The key to Jaguar's evolution over the past few decades was changing something significant while retaining one or two elements of the previous design. The eye is supposed to see a new car while declaring "That's a Jag!" Its true that the aluminum XJ in 2004 wasn't different enough, which probably was a major reason why sales were flat, but the new blob threw the baby out with the bathwater. Its not a Jag, its not anything. Its a very nice car, but its lacking entirely in any kind of identity.

I'd argue that Mercedes Benz does a pretty effective job of moving forward while maintaining linearity.
I look at the current S Class and the thing screams to me of "no style". The scalloped trunk and cheap rear end are rivaled only by the bland profile. You need to get some AMG styling bits to give it any presence whatsoever. Nevermind it's design is older than Methuselah.

I do not like the XJ's black C pillars. However, if you get either of the black colors, that issue goes away and the Jaguar is striking, in person at least. The front may be different but it still gets quad lights. I've entertained adding to my fleet and going upscale. The presence and newness of the Jaguar, combined with its much more affordable price, makes it the best of the limo bunch right now...

Jesda
01-04-11, 01:31 AM
I agree with you on the S-class. It looks like a 2000 Ford Focus that's been lengthened.

77CDV
01-04-11, 01:38 AM
The XJ is beginning to grow on me, though the front end is still goofy. I wonder if the new models are any improvment in interior room over the old? The old Jags were just pathetic on interior room.

thebigjimsho
01-04-11, 01:50 AM
The XJ is beginning to grow on me, though the front end is still goofy. I wonder if the new models are any improvment in interior room over the old? The old Jags were just pathetic on interior room.
The XJ-L has PLENTY of rear seat room. And you can get one for less than $80G...

77CDV
01-04-11, 01:59 AM
Wonderful, but I generally drive from the front seat. :p

thebigjimsho
01-04-11, 02:03 AM
Wonderful, but I generally drive from the front seat. :p
Me too. But I'd get $120 an hour...

Playdrv4me
01-04-11, 02:04 AM
Despite the fact that I can't really defend the current S-Class against it's similarities to the Focus (not that I mind the Focus), a friend of mine has a 2009 that we drove to Chicago in and I was absolutely floored by how much Mercedes had obviously listened to every possible gripe about the W220's cheapness and shortcomings. Every surface in the car felt solidly bolted together, of high quality and as if real thought had been put into the layout and the tiny touches that have long since been forgotten in most of today's luxury brands. The car, even in S550 trim, makes tremendously good usable in town power and out-Lexus's Lexus at their NVH game *without* sacrificing that Teutonic feel for the road you expect in a German car.

I would seriously consider owning one of these in alabaster white with an AMG package with 5 spoke wheels like Jim said, once they are a good used value.

thebigjimsho
01-04-11, 02:24 AM
The thing is, the dash looks ugly and not that upscale. The rear seating area has little to enjoy and also just doesn't look upscale. It may be built like a vault and feel great, but it looks so meh...

Jesda
01-04-11, 02:46 AM
A well-designed body is structured the way good music is written. From the nose, it builds up to a crescendo with a tail that concludes and reiterates what began in the front. This is why cars like the 98-04 Seville and W140 S-class look good and continue to look good.

When I see the XJ, I see a car that begins with a clear, strong statement but concludes with confusion as the cabin blends awkwardly into the rear. It looks great from the front and side, but from the back it seems as if the designers ran out of ideas (or money). There's a reason why most press photos show the front and side of the XJ.
http://www.zcars.com.au/images/2010-jaguar-xj12.jpg
Worst of all, it follows a trend where cars have awkward and abrupt cut lines in the sheetmetal. If you look at the trunklid, its trying to finish off the roofline across the back, but the cut line that extends upward from the tail light is what draws the eye and makes the trunk look like its sitting on top of the body as an afterthought.


It makes the whole car look confused and unsure of itself. Its gimmicky.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-04-11, 08:53 AM
The new Jaguar XJ looks a lot like something Citroen would bring to the market place. With the long, airy greenhouse, almost invisible roof pillars, tall, but slightly rounded slabby sides and long, thin tail lamps. Did they hire the Citroen head of design or something?

Lord Cadillac
01-04-11, 10:21 AM
I like both the XJ and XF. The XJ has a 1000 or 1100 watt stereo system as an option. :) It's big, roomy, comfortable, powerful and luxurious. I have a hard time not liking a car like that. I love the interior and I even like the exterior quite a bit. The first thing that caught my eye was the rear tail lights. I guess I'm the oddball here.. :p I love the XF-R...

thebigjimsho
01-04-11, 03:19 PM
A well-designed body is structured the way good music is written. From the nose, it builds up to a crescendo with a tail that concludes and reiterates what began in the front. This is why cars like the 98-04 Seville and W140 S-class look good and continue to look good.

When I see the XJ, I see a car that begins with a clear, strong statement but concludes with confusion as the cabin blends awkwardly into the rear. It looks great from the front and side, but from the back it seems as if the designers ran out of ideas (or money). There's a reason why most press photos show the front and side of the XJ.
http://www.zcars.com.au/images/2010-jaguar-xj12.jpg
Worst of all, it follows a trend where cars have awkward and abrupt cut lines in the sheetmetal. If you look at the trunklid, its trying to finish off the roofline across the back, but the cut line that extends upward from the tail light is what draws the eye and makes the trunk look like its sitting on top of the body as an afterthought.


It makes the whole car look confused and unsure of itself. Its gimmicky.
I disagree on the rear. In black, at least, it has substance and style. The taillights are gorgeous at night. In person, on the road, in black, the XJ looks amazing where I was almost puking at the silver one at the NYIAS...

Playdrv4me
01-04-11, 03:38 PM
The tail on that thing is the WORST part, every time I see one from the back I can't help but think MKS... It just has a generic Ford "tall ass syndrome" look to it that could have randomly emanated from ANY Ford division.

The XK on the other hand looks like a baby Aston, and there's nothing wrong with that!

thebigjimsho
01-04-11, 03:47 PM
The tail on that thing is the WORST part, every time I see one from the back I can't help but think MKS... It just has a generic Ford "tall ass syndrome" look to it that could have randomly emanated from ANY Ford division.

The XK on the other hand looks like a baby Aston, and there's nothing wrong with that!
I'm telling you. Black cures all that ills...

orconn
01-04-11, 04:26 PM
Yeah, black even makes an Aztec look presentable!

Jesda
01-04-11, 04:32 PM
I'm telling you. Black cures all that ills...

That's like going after a zit with a sharpie :D

thebigjimsho
01-04-11, 04:49 PM
That's like going after a zit with a sharpie :D
Do Indians get zits?

Jesda
01-04-11, 05:00 PM
Yes, ask me how I know. :(

thebigjimsho
01-04-11, 05:04 PM
anal warts?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-04-11, 05:45 PM
All this talk of the XJ. What about the XF? I love that car, gorgeous as heck.

thebigjimsho
01-04-11, 06:04 PM
All this talk of the XJ. What about the XF? I love that car, gorgeous as heck.
It is pretty nice. But I don't trade down from my CTS...

Jesda
01-04-11, 06:42 PM
Hmm yeah, the XF is all-around attractive. Some audiness, some astonness, and plenty of jagness. Its modern and clean. It does look a little Korean from some angles, but overall its pretty.

thebigjimsho
01-04-11, 08:35 PM
Hmm yeah, the XF is all-around attractive. Some audiness, some astonness, and plenty of jagness. Its modern and clean. It does look a little Korean from some angles, but overall its pretty.
All this from someone who drove a pooping dog...

MauiV
01-04-11, 08:52 PM
I am still eye balling a 08 XJL because I love the classic lines. It doesnt have the luxury items on an S, 8, LS or 7 series but it does look better and the resale value of Jags is some of the worst in the car market, let alone luxury segment. I am interested to see what the newly styled Jags start commanding with 50k on the clock.

I love the new interiors with the pop up shiter and clean lines.

Jesda
01-04-11, 08:57 PM
All this from someone who drove a pooping dog...

If a $16000 pooping dog will do 0-60 in 4.9 seconds, then let it defecate all over the furniture!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-04-11, 11:30 PM
Jesda owning that pooping dog truly gives him gravitas when he talks of "ugly cars".

thebigjimsho
01-04-11, 11:33 PM
How about 3.9 seconds?

Playdrv4me
01-05-11, 12:36 AM
Funny, I wasn't ACTUALLY looking for anything Jaguar related when I clicked on this article about the 2013 Range Rover redesign, but if you read further down in this article, you will see exactly what Tata is planning for these brands. Essentially, Jaguar and Land Rover are going to be merged, and my precious Rangie is going to be raped and pillaged into a POS unibody design that will be 1,000 pounds lighter. Marketing will use this weight loss number (as in the article) to promote the new Rangie as "more fuel efficient" and "better for the environment" and "faster"... but in reality all this is going to be is a creative way to take away all of the delicious parts of the truck that are key in that fantastic interior and the durable and classic exterior. Translation = $$$ saved. QUALITY PARTS TENDS TO WEIGH A LOT... all of those smoothly operating switches, real metal trim pieces etc etc. In fact, a LOT of the highest quality bits from the 2003-2005 Range Rover have ALREADY been "improved" out. Steve Martin likes to call these so-called upgrade/downgrades "de-provements".

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2013-land-rover-range-rover.htm

Range Rover on a Jaguar XJ platform... Yea, that sounds like a real off roader.

hueterm
01-05-11, 12:44 AM
Looks like your ass is back in a Land Cruiser, baby...

Playdrv4me
01-05-11, 12:54 AM
Looks like your ass is back in a Land Cruiser, baby...

No doubt, I love em' both.

Jesda
01-05-11, 01:20 AM
How about 3.9 seconds?

V coupe?

thebigjimsho
01-05-11, 03:29 PM
V coupe?
or sedan...